"Serle Court is a go-to set for international trust disputes. The quality of the barristers at all levels is excellent, and they are without exception accessible and knowledgeable."
"excellent as a whole, and indeed pre-eminent in offshore work, with a large number of highly competent counsel"
Chambers has a strong reputation for litigation and work in offshore jurisdictions, including a number of international financial centres. Our members are instructed in cases arising in (amongst others) Anguilla, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Middle East, Panama, Russia, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Singapore, and the United States of America.
This work is wide-ranging covering contentious and non-contentious trusts and probate work, complex commercial litigation, international fraud and asset tracing, insolvency and financial services litigation.
Our clients include leading offshore and UK based law firms. Chambers also hosts conferences in the UK, the Cayman Islands and Jersey.
Serle Court has always been known for its international presence in the fields of Commercial Chancery law. Our barristers are described as “very au fait with offshore work; they understand the nuances which are required in these cases.” Chambers UK Bar Guide has long ranked chambers in Band 1 for its offshore expertise, acknowledging that “members of Serle Court are very experienced in working closely with lawyers from different jurisdictions.” “They can adopt a hands on approach to foreign litigation, either on the ground or from London, as the case requires.” Members will happily travel abroad when required and a large number of them have been called to the bar in foreign jurisdictions.
In relation to our expertise in the Middle East, chambers is ranked in the Legal 500 EMEA: United Arab Emirates: The English Bar: Commercial:
Known primarily for heavyweight Chancery litigation in London, Serle Court handles similar matters in the DIFC courts. Rupert Reed KC is well-connected in Saudi Arabia: he represented Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation, a Saudi company, in successfully resisting an application for an anti-suit injunction brought by FedEx, concerning an arbitration over FedEx’s termination of its contract with the Saudi company in the wake of the FedEx-TNT merger.
Also recommended in Chambers Global Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery: UK
Based in London, respected barrister Rupert Reed KC is noted as very active in the region and is commended not least for his knowledge of Arabic. He advocates in a broad range of commercial disputes in the DIFC Courts and also acts in arbitration, representing clients from sectors such as banking and real estate.
Members have advised on some of the largest international cases in recent times.
The services that we offer are wide-ranging covering contentious and noncontentious trusts and probate work, complex commercial litigation, international fraud and asset tracing, insolvency and financial services litigation. Areas in which members have international experience are as follows:
To read about our expertise in UAE & DIFC Litigation please click here. Please join our experts in conversation on LinkedIn by joining the Serle Court – Middle East & Arab Law Group here.
Chambers UK 2021
Serle Court is highly renowned for its extensive expertise in offshore trust matters and has comprehensive knowledge of an ensemble of jurisdictions including the Channel Islands, the BVI and the Cayman Islands. The set offers further expertise in Asian jurisdictions. Its barristers are frequently instructed by firms from across the globe. Members continue to act in some of the most substantial cases in offshore jurisdictions, including Wong v Grand View in Bermuda. One instructing solicitor comments: "They are excellent without exception."
Client Service: "The clerks are great: they are very user-friendly, practical, and pragmatic." "The client service is second to none; we would not be able to run any of our cases without them."
Silks
Philip Marshall KC: "He is a truly excellent advocate." "Incisive and robust." "He is a serious big hitter."
John Machell KC: "He gives excellent advice and is cost-effective and very responsive. A very high-quality silk."
Jonathan Adkin KC: "A very powerful advocate and a hugely valuable ally to have."
Richard Wilson KC: "Astute, responsive, prepared to make himself available, and the advice is always pragmatic." "Excellent to deal with and offers solid commercial advice." "He is very easy to work with and makes himself available no matter how busy he is."
Dakis Hagen KC: "He continues to be a top trust adviser and one of our absolute go-to barristers. Excellent with clients." "Excellent to work with: approachable, responsive, and always adds value to the case." "He is charming with clients and has an almost unparalleled ability to simplify complex legal principles and facts for the benefit of both solicitors and lay clients."
Juniors
Nicholas Harrison: "He is always on top of every aspect of the case. Quite outstanding." "He is very hard-working and clear-minded."
Giles Richardson: "An outstanding barrister, easy to work with, solid and technically very gifted." "His pragmatic advice is world class." "He provides quick and thorough advice and inspires confidence with clients."
James Brightwell: "He is very, very knowledgeable, thoughtful, very analytical and hard-working." "A very solid, very bright, prompt and reliable senior junior to go to. He has an in-depth knowledge of trust law."
Ruth Jordan: "She is meticulous in her review of papers." "She works incredibly hard and doesn't miss anything. She has a great ability to make connections in different jurisdictions."
Matthew Morrison: "He is very good and has excellent drafting skills." "Very thorough, industrious and bright."
Legal 500 2021
For many Serle Court 'provides a good combination of commercial acumen and trusts expertise, making them an ideal set for offshore trusts and commercial work', covering a range of work in the British Overseas Territories and beyond.
Silks:
Elizabeth Jones KC: "She has a fabulous knowledge of the law and speed at assimilating information and detail that is second to none."
Philip Marshall KC: "A natural choice for heavy-duty offshore-fraud work"
Philip Jones KC: "A great cross-examiner and strategist."
John Machell KC: "An excellent advocate who finds commercial solutions."
Jonathan Adkin KC: "Astute and commercially-minded with a no-nonsense courtroom approach."
Richard Wilson KC: "An incredibly robust advocate who is very good at reading the tribunal."
Dakis Hagen KC: "Phenomenally intelligent and a true expert in the field."
Timothy Collingwood KC: "User-friendly with an incisive mind and bags of offshore experience."
Juniors:
Nicholas Harrison: "A master at working with expert witnesses and able to build a bridge between them and the court."
Giles Richardson: "He balances different jurisdictions with aplomb and is particularly skilled at distilling complex advice into digestible form."
James Brightwell: "James is fabulously bright and easy to work with. He is able to clearly communicate complex legal principles in a way that is understandable to clients and presents excellently."
Ruth Jordan: "Always well-prepared, she knows her area of law well."
Matthew Morrison: "Undoubtedly one of his strengths is assimilating large volumes of information and drilling down to the key issues."
Sophie Holcombe: "Naturally blessed with strong analytical skills and commercially."
Adil Mohamedbhai: "He brings to the table a razor-sharp intellect and a collegiate approach."
Emma Hargreaves: "She has excellent insight and in-depth knowledge of trusts law."
Zahler Bryan: "Razor-smart - a great asset to a team, her input is always well-thought-out and useful."
Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and Others v Jardine Strategic Holdings Limited [2024] CA (Bda) 7 Civ:
Jonathan Adkin KC and Adil Mohamedbhai continue to act for the dissenters in Re Jardine Strategic Holdings Limited, a multi-billion-dollar shareholder appraisal action in Bermuda concerning the Jardine group of companies, a Fortune Global 500 group of companies and one of the largest conglomerates in the world.
In December 2023, Adil assisted the dissenters in successfully resisting the company’s appeal challenging the well-established principle that a company cannot claim privilege against existing or former shareholders other than where the documents are brought into existence for the purpose of a dispute between a company and its shareholders. At first instance, Hargun CJ had recognised the principle.
The Bermuda Court of Appeal (Clarke P, Bell JA and Kawaley JA) confirmed the existence of the principle.
The judgment can be found here
Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse Trust Limited [2023] SGCH(I) 9:
The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Judge Bergin) has today handed down judgment following the trial of the dispute between Bidzina Ivanishvili and other plaintiffs and Credit Suisse Trust Limited. The claim stemmed from the long-running fraud committed by Patrice Lescaudron, an employee of Credit Suisse Bank in Geneva.
In a detailed judgment spanning 257 pages, the Court upheld the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendant acted in breach of trust. Of particular interest:
The Court has determined the basis for the assessment of loss and ordered that the calculations of loss be updated following the judgment. The total loss is expected to be in excess of USD 900 million.
Sophie Holcombe and Jamie Randall acted for the successful Plaintiffs with Drew & Napier LLC.CIVI
To read the judgment, please click here.
Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has handed down its advice in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51. The decision establishes that a constitutional challenge may be made in an action for habeas corpus and that separate legal proceedings are not required.
Mr Jean Charles was arrested and detained by officers of the Bahamas Immigration Department and then expelled to Haiti without being charged with any offence or taken before any court, and without any detention or deportation order having been made in respect of him under the provisions of the Bahamas Immigration Act.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus was made on his behalf. An application for constitutional relief was then made in the alternative. The judge dismissed the writ of habeas corpus because Mr Jean Charles had already been expelled to Haiti but granted constitutional relief, requiring the state parties to facilitate his return to The Bahamas.
The judge’s decision was set aside on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that an application for a writ of habeas corpus should always remain a discrete action and that the judge ought to have required the applicant to institute new proceedings if he wished to seek constitutional relief. It also held that there was uncertainty over whether Mr Jean Charles was in fact the person expelled to Haiti and that the judge ought to have adjourned to permit the state parties to adduce evidence on various issues of fact.
The Board held that it was erroneous to require an applicant in an action for habeas corpus to bring a separate action to seek constitutional relief, or to hold that evidence produced in the habeas corpus proceedings was not available for the purposes of the constitutional motion. It reiterated that the rights enshrined in the Constitution of The Bahamas should be given a liberal interpretation in order to give individuals the full measure of the rights and freedoms which it confers, and that a person who alleges that his or her fundamental rights are threatened or have been contravened should have unhindered access to the court.
The Board remitted the matter for retrial following further evidence whilst questioning whether there would turn out to be much substance in several of the alleged factual disputes, including in particular the identity of the appellant and whether it was he whom the authorities removed to Haiti.
Mr Jean Charles was represented by Adrian de Froment, led by Edward Fitzgerald KC (Doughty Street) and Frederick Smith KC and R. Dawson Malone of Callenders & Co and Simons Muirhead Burton LLP.
To view the judgment of the JCPC please click here.
Al Buhaira National Insurance Co v Horizon Energy:
Zoe O’Sullivan KC and Gregor Hogan acted in the DIFC Court for the successful respondent in Al Buhaira National Insurance Co v Horizon Energy LLC CFI 098/2021 (9 November 2022), obtaining the dismissal of Al Buhaira’s application for an anti-suit injunction preventing Horizon from pursuing parallel proceedings in Sharjah. This important judgment contains valuable consideration of the role of comity when the DIFC Court is called upon to address conflicts of jurisdiction between the different courts of the UAE.
This was an insurance claim in which Horizon claimed an indemnity from Al Buhaira in respect of the loss of a vessel which was appropriated from its mooring by the Iranian navy. When AL Buhaira rejected the claim, Horizon filed a complaint with the Insurance Authority, as mandated by the Federal Insurance Law. In the meantime, Al Buhaira brought proceedings for a negative declaration in the DIFC Court. The jurisdiction clause in the insurance policy read: “This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the English Law and each Party Agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United Arab Emirates. The arbitration agreement shall also be subject to the law and jurisdiction of the United Arab Emirates.” Justice Roger Giles found that this amounted to a non-exclusive choice of jurisdiction which included the DIFC Court as well as the courts of other Emirates, and that it was not an abuse of process for Al Buhaira to bring proceedings in the DIFC Court: see Al Buhaira v Horizon CFI-098-2021 (27 April 2022). This decision is currently under appeal.
Following the Giles J judgment, the Insurance Authority ruled that it had no jurisdiction over Horizon’s complaint, and Horizon challenged this ruling in the Court of Sharjah in accordance with Article 5 of the Insurance Law. However, Al Buhaira then sought an anti-suit injunction to prevent Horizon from proceeding with its challenge in Sharjah on the grounds that it was vexatious and abusive for Horizon to bring proceedings in parallel with Al Buhaira’s claim in the DIFC Court.
HE Justice Ali Al Madani dismissed Al Buhaira’s application for an anti-suit injunction, holding that it was not abusive and vexatious for Horizon to continue its proceedings in Sharjah. The clause was a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause which permitted proceedings to be brought in more than one jurisdiction. In the circumstances, for proceedings to be vexatious and oppressive there had to be something more than just parallel proceedings. The DIFC Court should be cautious about interfering with the process of another court on grounds of comity. It should be especially slow to interfere where, as in the present case, any conflict between a judgment of the DIFC Court and the Sharjah Court could ultimately be resolved by the Union Supreme Court. The Court cited and applied the reasoning of a number of leading decisions of the English Court of Appeal on anti-suit injunctions including Deutsche Bank v Highlander [2010] 1 WLR 1023 and Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14, while distinguishing the decision of Justice Wayne Martin in Emirates NBD PJSC v KBBO CPG Investment [2020] FI 045 (9 August 2021) on its facts.
View the judgment here.
Kea Investments Ltd v Watson:
Lord Justice Nugee handed down judgment yesterday in Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2022] EWHC 5 (Ch), rejecting a committed contemnor’s argument that his costs should be paid by the successful applicant. This judgment will be of interest to parties considering committal as a means to secure compliance with court orders as well as to those whose clients are in breach of those orders.
During a 4 week committal hearing Kea established a serious breach in relation to 5 of the 10 sub-counts tried before Lord Justice Nugee (Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch)). One of these 5 serious breaches was a contumacious breach which merited an immediate term of 4 months’ imprisonment (Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2796 (Ch)).
In yesterday’s judgment, Lord Justice Nugee rejected Mr Watson’s argument that Kea should pay part of his costs because it had not succeeded on all the counts included in the application. He held that Kea was the successful party for the purposes of CPR r44.2(2) as it had succeeded in establishing a sufficiently wilful breach of an order to require punishment by way of committal. It did not matter that the committal application was supported by a number of counts or sub-counts: it was still a single application with a single objective, namely Mr Watson’s committal. Under the general rule Kea was therefore entitled to its costs, subject to the court’s discretion to make a different order under CPR r44.2(2)(b).
The judgment contains a useful analysis of the appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion under CPR r.44.2(2)(b) where a party has not succeeded on all counts underlying an application. Although Kea had been unsuccessful in relation to some of the counts supporting its application, it had not acted unreasonably in pursuing those counts. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, Mr Watson was ordered to pay 50% of Kea’s costs on the indemnity basis.
The judgment is available here.
Elizabeth Jones QC, Justin Higgo QC, Gareth Tilley and Zahler Bryan (instructed by Toby Graham of Farrer & Co) acted for Kea.
Watson v Kea Investments:
Elizabeth Jones QC, Justin Higgo QC, Gareth Tilley, Paul Adams, Zahler Bryan, and Oliver Jones continue to act for Kea Investments in the ongoing litigation against Eric Watson, following the substantial judgment obtained against Mr Watson for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty in 2018. This year resulted in notable decisions on the circumstances in which a defendant can have resort to assets subject to a freezing or proprietary injunction when there is an unsatisfied judgment debt ([2020] EWHC 472 (Ch)), a judgment creditor’s right to be subrogated to the position of a bank that had used money held on trust for the judgment creditor to satisfy debts of its customer, the judgment debtor ([2020] EWHC 309 (Ch)) and, in a judgment reaffirming the risk taken by litigants who deliberately breach court orders, Mr Watson was committed to prison for 4 months for failing to disclose assets which were made available for his use ([2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch); [2020] EWHC 2796 (Ch)). Mr Watson’s application to stay the committal order was refused.
Please click here for the most recent judgment.
Wong v Grand View Private Trust Company Ltd:
Dakis Hagen QC (assisted by Emma Hargreaves) acts for the Plaintiffs and Jonathan Adkin QC (assisted by Adil Mohamedbhai) acts for the Defendant trustee in Wong & Anor v Grand View Private Trust Company Ltd, a claim to recover substantial trust property transferred to a trustee of a purpose trust. The Plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining summary judgment at first instance on the ground that powers of addition and exclusion cannot be exercised in a manner which alters or destroys the substratum of the trust ([2019] SC (Bda) 37 Com (5 June 2019)), but this was overturned by the Bermuda Court of Appeal in April 2020 (Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2019, 20 April 2020). Richard Wilson QC (assisted by James Weale) acts for Tony Wang, an intervenor in the appeal. The Plaintiffs and Tony Wang have each been granted leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2020] SGCA 62:
Jonathan Adkin QC, Sophie Holcombe, and Jamie Randall act on behalf of the former Prime Minister of Georgia and his family as beneficiaries of a Singapore Trust in Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2020] SGCA 62. Claims have been commenced against Credit Suisse entities for losses arising from the mismanagement of an investment portfolio said to be worth over US$1bn. In July 2020 the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Credit Suisse Trust’s jurisdiction challenge, bringing an end to a long-running jurisdiction battle.
Click here to view the most recent judgment.
Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) Ltd v. (1) NMC Trading LLC (2) NMC Healthcare LLC (3) Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2020] DIFC CFI 031:
In Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) Ltd v. (1) NMC Trading LLC (2) NMC Healthcare LLC (3) Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2020] DIFC CFI 031, Rupert Reed KC and Gregor Hogan acted for the major Dutch Bank, CEBD, to obtaining a worldwide freezing order against Dr BR Shetty, founder of the troubled NMC Group. The decision also confirmed that an applicant need not demonstrate any assets of the respondent in the jurisdiction of the DIFC to obtain a worldwide freezing order. Rupert and Gregor represented CEBD at the trial of its claim against Dr Shetty in September 2021.
FAL Oil Company Ltd v Sarjah Electricity and Water Authority:
Rupert Reed KC and Gregor Hogan acted for the Sarjah Elecricity and Water Authority in FAL Oil Company Ltd v Sarjah Electricity and Water Authority. The case involved the challenging of the recognition and enforcement in the DIFC of a Sarjah court judgment on the basis of inter-Emirate immunity. This is the first time the DIFC Court considered the concepts of sovereign immunity within the UAE.
Khalifeh v Blom Bank [2020] EWHC 2427(QB):
In Khalifeh v Blom Bank, Zahler Bryan is acting for the claimant who seeks the return of monies held in a Lebanese bank account and, in a high-profile decision earlier this year, successfully resisted the Lebanese bank’s jurisdiction challenge by establishing that the claimant was a consumer for the purposes of the European rules of jurisdiction ([2020] EWHC 2427(QB)).
Brown & Company Plc v Faber Capital (DIFC) Ltd:
In Brown & Company Plc v Faber Capital (DIFC) Ltd, Rupert Reed QC, and Gregor Hogan continue to act for a financial services firm defending allegations of breach of fiduciary duty arising from a sophisticated phishing attack.
St Johns Trust Company (PUT) Ltd v Medlands (PTC) Ltd:
John Machell QC and Dan McCourt Fritz act for one of the respondents to an appeal in St Johns Trust Company (PUT) Ltd v Medlands (PTC) Ltd. The appeal concerned various orders made by the Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction in relation to trusts. The appeal was heard by the Bermudian Court of Appeal in January 2020.
B v B:
In B v B, Emma Hargreaves and Gregor Hogan act for the wife in divorce proceedings involving Portuguese property held in a Cypriot trust. The case involves complex questions of jurisdiction and trusts law, and is expected to be one of the first decisions considering the Privy Council’s decision in Webb v Webb. Judgment is expected in early 2021.
Geneva Trust Company (GTC) SA v IDF & Anr (Re Stingray Trust) (judgment 21/12/20):
Dakis Hagen QC appeared for the first defendant in Geneva Trust Company (GTC) SA v IDF & Anr (21/12/2020) FSD 248 OF 2017 (IKJ) in her successful application for a stay of a claim in the Cayman Islands seeking declarations as to the validity of a Cayman Islands trust which trust was already being impugned by her in ongoing litigation in Italy. The application was met in part by the argument that the Cayman court had an exclusive statutory jurisdiction to determine such matters under s. 90 of the Cayman Trusts Law (which, it was said, in that context abrogated the power to stay on grounds of forum non conveniens); the court noted that such had been the orthodox view historically based on authorities stretching back 20 years.
However, having conducted a full survey of the case law, Kawaley J found that on analysis no authority was binding or persuasive as to the presence of such a statutory exclusive jurisdiction, nor was such the proper reading of the statute, and on the facts ordered a stay of the Cayman claim. The case is also important more widely for its commentary on the scope of jurisdiction clauses in trust instruments in the wake of Crociani.
Dakis Hagen QC appearing with Rachael Reynolds and Deborah Barker Roye (both of Ogier) represented the successful applicant.
The full judgment is accessible here.
Basin Supply Corporation v (1) Rouge LLC (2) Claude Barret [2018] CFI 057:
In Basin v Rouge CFI 057/2018, James Weale appeared in the last in-person hearing in the DIFC Court before lockdown. Following a trial, James obtained judgment for the claimant in a claim under a guarantee agreement: [2018] CFI 057. The Court gave guidance on the extent to which variations to underlying obligations affect the validity of an associated guarantee. James also successfully defeated a jurisdiction challenge submitted to the Joint Judicial Committee (Cassation No. 9 of 2019).
A link to the judgment can be found here.
Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 2988 (Ch):
In Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 2988 (Ch), Will Henderson acted for the Attorney General. This involved ‘The National Fund’ which was settled with £500,000 of cash and securities in 1928 on trust to accumulate income and profits until the date fixed by the trustee as being the date when, either alone or together with other funds then available for the purpose, the fund was sufficient to discharge the National Debt. The fund was then to be transferred to the National Debt Commissioners to be applied by them in reduction of the National Debt. The Fund is now worth about £0.5 billion. Zacaroli J held that there was a valid charitable trust and that the court had jurisdiction to order a cy-pres scheme. He adjourned the question of what (if any) scheme to order.
Please click here to view the judgment.
SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd v Renish Petroleum FZE:
Rupert Reed KC and James Weale acted for the Claimant bank in a US$30m fraud claim against various defendants in proceedings in the DIFC in SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd v Renish Petroleum FZE (CFI 054/2018). Having successfully obtained summary judgment against the first two defendants, the trial against the third defendant has been listed in December 2021. A committal application against the first two defendants took place in January 2021. Please click here to view the judgment.
Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse Trust [2020] SGCA 62:
The Singapore Court of Appeal has dismissed Credit Suisse Trust’s jurisdiction challenge in breach of trust proceedings brought by the beneficiaries of a Singapore Trust, bringing an end to a long-running jurisdiction battle. The Court allowed the Claimants’ appeal on the grounds that Singapore was the most appropriate forum to determine the breach of trust claims against the trustee, and laid down important guidance as to the effect of forum for administration clauses in trust deeds. The Court of Appeal held that the forum for administration clause in the trust deed functioned as a jurisdiction clause, but that it did not govern all proceedings: it designated the jurisdiction that had supervisory jurisdiction over the trust, rather than dictating the venue for the resolution of contentious disputes. Jonathan Adkin QC and Sophie Holcombe act for the Claimants, instructed by Signature Litigation LLP, together with Drew & Napier (Singapore). The full Judgment can be found here.
Sofer v SwissIndependent Trustees [2019] EWHC 2071:
In Sofer v SwissIndependent Trustees SA [2020] EWCA Civ 699, Richard Wilson QC and James Weale acted for the respondent in an appeal against an order striking out the claimant’s pleading on the basis that it did not properly particularise a claim in fraud. The Court of Appeal gave important guidance on the pleading requirements of fraud in the context of a dispute against a professional trustee.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Grand Valley General Trading LLC v GGICO Sunteck Ltd DIFC CFI 044/2018, DIFC CA 007/2019:
Grand Valley General Trading LLC v GGICO Sunteck Ltd DIFC CFI 044/2018, DIFC CA 007/2019 concerns a joint venture dispute in relation to a property development in the Burj Khalifa area in on-shore Dubai. Rupert Reed KC obtained judgments from the DIFC courts on issues as diverse as whether a non-party 50% joint venture partner had standing to apply to set aside a default judgment for the dissolution of the joint venture company; the test of desirability under RDC 20.7 O for joining a new party; and whether the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction over the dispute, including the power to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration under Article 13 of the Arbitration Law.
IMMS v BankMed SAL [2019] DIFC CA 013:
In IMMS v BankMed SAL [2019] DIFC CA 013, Rupert Reed QC and Gregor hogan acted on the appeal of an interim refusal to grant an injunction freezing assets to the value of USD 755 million. Although the Court declined to find a sufficient risk of dissipation, it is likely to confirm the putative jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to grant interim relief in support of foreign court and arbitral proceedings.
YYY Ltd v ZZZ:
Rupert Reed QC (now KC) and Zoe O'Sullivan QC (now KC) represented the successful claimant in YYY Ltd v ZZZ Ltd [2017] DIFC ARB 005, a landmark decision of the DIFC Court refusing to recognise a decision of the highest Dubai national court on public policy grounds. The DIFC Court held that the Dubai Court of Cassation had breached its obligations under the New York Convention by applying its own law to determine the validity of the clause, rather than the law chosen by the parties. This reaffirms the pro-arbitration bias of the common law courts, and will have importance for arbitration practitioners beyond the DIFC.
Larmag v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2019] DIFC CA 010:
In Larmag v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2019] DIFC CA 010, the DIFC Court of Appeal significantly extended the party jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts under Article 5(A)(1)(a) of the Judical Authority Law, ordering disclosure by a UAE bank on the basis that, in being 'recognised' by the Dubai Financial Services Authority in order to trade on NASDAQ Dubai, the Bank was 'authorised' to carry on financial services in the DIFC and therefore a 'Licensed DIFC Establishment'. Rupert Reed QC and Sophia Hurst act for First Abu Dhabi Bank.
AF v SF [2019] EWHC 1224 (Fam):
In AF v SF [2019] EWHC 1224 (Fam) Dakis Hagen QC and James Weale acted for a respondent husband who lacked capacity in relation to a substantial financial remedy claim against a suite of ancient and dynastic trusts.
Re Scherbakov:
Dakis Hagen QC and Emma Hargreaves continue to act for the adult children of a late Russian businessman in Re Scherbakov, deceased, a cross border dispute concerning the succession to his very substantial worldwide estate and related proceedings concerning the beneficial ownership of very valuable shares in a BVI company. Dakis and Emma recently succeeded in obtaining an order for joint case management of the two English claims, notwithstanding opposition from the claimants. Giles Richardson acts for the deceased’s former wife and Richard Wilson QC and Oliver Jones act for the interim administrators.
HSBC International Trustee Limited v Tan Poh Lee FSD 175 of 2019 (IKJ):
Dakis Hagen QC and Emma Hargreaves advised the trustee in HSBC International Trustee Limited v Tan Poh Lee FSD 175 of 2019 (IKJ), a decision of the Cayman Court on the limits of the Cayman Islands' firewall legislation.
Hartogs v Rothschild AG [2019] EWHC 1915:
Richard Wilson QC and James Weale (acting for the Claimant and Defendant respectively) successfully set aside two multi-million-dollar trust on the ground of equitable mistake in Hartogs v Rothschild Trust AG [2019] EWHC 1915.
Re L&M Trust:
Timothy Collingwood continues to act for the Claimants in Re L&M Trust, in proceedings in the BVI seeking to set aside a trust. He appeared at the hearing of an application to obtain unredacted copies of documents held by a receiver appointed over the trust assets.
T Trusts:
In the T Trusts, Kathryn Purkis continues to advise new trustees in relation to trusteeship transfer issues arising in a network of family trusts, including in relation to an allegedly forged deed of indemnity.
ITG Ltd and Bayeux Ltd v Geneva Trust SA [2019] GRC 064:
James Brightwell acted for the Plaintiffs and Timothy Collingwood acted for the new trustees in the latest Tchenguiz instalment, ITG Ltd and Bayeux Ltd v Geneva Trust SA [2019] GRC 064, where the Guernsey Royal Court followed the decision in Re Z Trusts on the priority of trustee creditor claims and held that the assignment of a claim to the present trustees had resulted in the discharge of the debt.
PTNZ v AS:
Dominic Dowley QC, Richard Wilson QC and Zahler Bryan acted for the trustee in PTNZ v AS, a Public Trustee v Cooper application concerning the restructuring of a substantial group of English trusts, in a case involving proceedings before the English and Jersey courts.
Re B:
John Machell QC and Dakis Hagen QC appeared before the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands in Re B, a Public Trustee v Cooper application approving the restructuring of a $1bn trust. Emma Hargreaves was junior counsel to the Protection Committee.
Shanda Games Ltd v Maso Capital Investments Ltd & Ors (Cayman Islands) [2020] UKPC 2:
Philip Jones QC appeared in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in Shanda Games, one of China's largest computer games companies which delisted from the NYSE on a merger taking place. This was the first case to reach the Court of Appeal in relation to section 238 of the Cayman Companies Law, and involves an important point of principle as to whether a minority discount should be placed to valuation of shares of dissenting shareholders to a merger. Judgment is awaited, and the matter is expected to reach the Privy Council.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd v Glenalla Properties Ltd [2018] UKPC 7:
Kathryn Purkis and James Brightwell obtained judgment in and undertook the costs arguments in respect of the Privy Council decision of Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd v Glanalla Properties Ltd [2018] UKPC 7. This case confirmed (amongst other things) that the private international law status of trustees (at least of Channel Island trusts), and that notwithstanding the Jersey legislation, a creditor must nonetheless access trust funds by being subrogated to the trustee's indemnity from the fund.
Please click here to view the judgment.
Grupa Ozarow v Clean Energy Trading CL:
Professor Jonathan Harris QC (Hon.) and Sophie Holcombe acted for the defendant company trading in Carbon Credits in successfully discharging an ex parte injunction obtained in support of Polish proceedings on the basis, inter alia, that the relevant EU jurisdiction rules were arguably infringed.
Please click here for the judgment.
SerleShare:
'The New DIFC-LCIA Rules 2021: A Drive to Efficiency' article by Zoe O'Sullivan QC and Sophia Hurst
'Cayman clarifies trust law on “firewall” legislation and scope of jurisdiction clauses' article by Dakis Hagen KC
'Judgment in Basin Supply Corporation v (1) Rouge LLC (2) Claude Barret [2018] CFI 057' article by James Weale
Gulf Business:
'Covid-19 impact: How fast has dispute resolution transitioned to a digital model in UAE' article by Zoe O'Sullivan KC
Gulf News:
'COVID-19 fallout: Businesses will soon be testing UAE’s legal boundaries' article by Rupert Reed KC and Gregor Hogan
Welcome to SerleShare
SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More
A stellar year for Serle Court in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025 guide
We are thrilled to announce another outstanding year of rankings and testimonials in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025. Serle Court... Read More
Serle Court is home to a deep bench of offshore experts who regularly appear in highprofile matters in the following jurisdictions:
"Serle Court is a top-quality set and that quality is not confined to the barristers. The clerks are responsive and attentive."
Welcome to SerleShare
SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More
A stellar year for Serle Court in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025 guide
We are thrilled to announce another outstanding year of rankings and testimonials in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025. Serle Court... Read More
